Memo with comments on EPA draft document, August 2003

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

evidence of asbestos contamination to support requirement to use abatement procedures and to support speculation that if abatement procedures were not used, health risks would be increased. Accordingly, this paragraph should be deleted.

12. The City notes that page 7 provided to the City is blank.

13. As a technical correction, the City notes that in the first paragraph on the page, the New York State Department of Labor, not the Department of Environmental Conversation is delegated the responsibility for implementing federal regulations under the NESHAP program.

The assumption of this entire section is that NESHAP standards applied and that, therefore, there were violations of NESHAP. Instead, the City took the position that, while the WTC site was not an asbestos site (again, the technical experts in the other agencies may have a more proper term), it would institute many similar work practices, e..g. wash stations, respirators. dust control, etc.

14. Concerning the first full paragraph on page 9 of the draft report, the City believes that given the prominent mention of the NESHAP notification requirement, this paragraph should include a sentence indicating that the EPA because of its involvement had functional notice of the demolition and everything concerning the demolition and that as a practical matter, notification would noLhave changed the manner in which demolition was conducted, actions would have been -conducted.—We recommend that the following sentence be added at the beginning of the paragraph, “While the EPA and other agencies were not provided formal written notice of the WTC demolition activities, the EPA and other regulatory agencies had notice, in advance, of the demolition activities and the manner in which they were being conducted as a result of the EPA’s involvement in the Response Effort. EPA did not object to these activities and even if formal written notification was provided, the activities would not have been conducted in any different manner.”

15. As the only discrete asbestos containing material encountered at the WTC site was | below grade, the City recommends that the first sentence of the first paragraph on page 10 be revised to read, “Both NYCDDC and EPA officials told us that asbestos containing material (e.g., pipe wrapping, steel insulation) was only encountered below grade, and when it was encountered during removal, it was tested and treated in accordance with asbestos abatement procedures.”

16. The City recommends that the last sentence of the footnote on page 11 be modified to provide a more complete explanation. The sentence should read, “Furthermore, they stated that the vehicles did not require decontamination since this was not a hazardous material situation and while decontamination procedures were not required, wash down procedures were mandated.

17. The first paragraph in the section labeled “Transfer of Debris to Barges” on page 12 is misleading and unfairly prejudicial to the City. This section is not based on substantial evidence. The testimony of people complaining must be evaluated very carefully. This has not been done in this report. The report, without any critical evaluation at all, seems to accept all of these complaints as true. The other evidence available, however, suggests that the complaints Revised Draft SB Comments.doc 5 8/3/3

NYC-WTC_000153368